Top Five Misquotations Of The Quran

The recent surge in negative sentiments towards Islam and Muslims has resulted in many attempts to depict the religion as inherently violent. This has also resulted in absurd accusations against the Quran. What are the five most frequently misquoted passages in the Qur’an? Do accusations of violence stand up to academic scrutiny, or are the verses being distorted to suggest the opposite of what they actually say?

Religion has always been a convenient scapegoat for violence. Genocidal maniacs and extremists throughout history have frequently invoked religion to grant cosmic significance to their earthly conflicts. The political conflicts, brutal dictatorships, and warfare involving Muslim countries in recent decades have lead to the emergence of modern extremist groups attempting to justify violence in the name of Islam. Chaos, instability and prolonged warfare create a political vacuum where power-hungry groups vie for control. Such groups will raise whatever banner draws support for their cause, whether it be the banner of ethnic identity, cultural identity, nationalism, 0r a particular ideological or religious identity.

One should immediately be skeptical of the political instrumentalization of religion by such groups, and of the attempt to shift blame to a religion that has been around for 1400 years and is practiced by almost two billion adherents around the world. Nevertheless, certain verses of the Qur’an have been tossed around by radicals and by islamophobes alike, alleging that there is some Qur’anic support for violent activity. The slightest familiarity with the verses in question would demonstrate that nothing could be further from the truth.

It is fairly easy to misquote a text. All one must do is cherry-pick partial sentences and delete the surrounding context. What makes the five most misquoted Quranic verses so interesting is that the supposed violent nature of such verses immediately dissolves with a quick glance at the textual and historical context. All one needs to do is simply complete the sentence, or read the preceding or following verse, and it becomes evident that the verse in no way preaches violence. In addition, this perspective is further substantiated when one looks at the other passages in the Qur’an and statements of the Prophet Muhammad, which are unequivocal in their condemnation of violence and affirmation of peace. Furthermore, 1400 years of scholarly analysis of the Quran dispels the misinterpretations of contemporary radicals and anti-Muslim bigots

Misquotation 1 – Verse 2:191

The phrase “kill them where you find them” is by far the most frequent phrase that is misquoted by ardent Islamophobes and radical extremists. But this battlefield exhortation comes right after the verse which states “fight against those who fight you” and it comes right before the part which states “but if they cease fighting, then let there be no hostility except against oppressors“!

What is the historical context of verses 2:190-3 and who does it refer to? Ibn Abbas, the famous companion of the Prophet and Qur’anic exegete, says that this passage was revealed in reference to the Quraysh [1]. The Quraysh had persecuted the Muslims and tortured them for thirteen years in Makkah. They had driven Muslims out of their homes, seized their properties and wealth, and fought battles against them after the Muslims sought refuge in Madinah. The Muslims were apprehensive about another attack occurring during their sacred pilgrimage when fighting was prohibited. This is why these verses were revealed to reassure them that they would be able to defend against a Qurayshi attack during pilgrimage. Such fighting never ended up occurring between them and Quraysh, for a peace agreement was upheld and the pilgrimage was permitted [2].

The phrase “do not commit aggression” was explained by Ibn Abbas to mean, “Do not attack women, children, elderly, or anyone who is not fighting against you“, and thus harming any non-combatants is deemed a transgression against God Almighty [3]. The erudite Qur’anic exegete Ibn Ashur (d.1393H) states, “If they desist from fighting you, then do not fight them for verily God is Most Forgiving and Most Merciful, and so it is only befitting that the believers show mercy” [4]. In this regard, this verse is very similar to 4:89 which prescribes fighting the enemy but is immediately followed by the statement in 4:89, “So if they remove themselves from you and do not fight you but rather offer you peace, then God has made no way for you to fight them.“

Like this?

Get more of our great articles.

Returning to 2:190-3, the word fitnah in this passage means religious persecution (as used in 85:10) and punishing someone for their faith, and coercing them to disbelieve or commit idolatry. The great Qur’anic scholar Imam al-Kisaa’i (d.189) explains that fitnah here means “torture (‘adhaab) because the Quraysh used to torture those who accepted Islam” [5]. Ibn Jarir al-Tabari (d.310H) explains that the phrase “fitnah is worse than killing” means that “to persecute a believer for his faith until he recants it and becomes an idolater is worse and more painful to him than being slain while holding onto his faith” [6]

Therefore, the passage clearly prohibits fighting against those who are not fighting. The particular misquoted phrase describes fighting in defence against perpetrators of anti-religious persecution and torture.

Misquotation 2 – Verse 9:5

The next phrase that is frequently misquoted is quite similar – “slay those pagans wherever you find them”, but again the slightest familiarity with the historical and contextual context would immediately dispel this misquotation. The verse immediately before speaks of upholding peaceful agreements with those who are at peace and never supported enemy warriors against the Muslims – so who is verse 9:5 in reference to? Qur’anic exegetes al-Baydawi (d.685H) and al-Alusi (d.1270H) explain that it refers to those pagan arabs who violated their peace treaties by waging war against the Muslims (nakitheen) [7], and thus Abu Bakr al-Jassas (d.370H) notes that these verses are particular to the Arab polytheists and do not apply to anyone else [8]. These comments are substantiated by what the Qur’an itself says. Verse 13 of the same chapter states, “Will you not fight against those who violated their peace treaties, plotted the expulsion of the messenger, and initiated the fighting against you?” and verse 36 states, “and fight the pagans collectively who wage war against you collectively.” The textual context is abundantly clear that verse 9:5 is not a random instruction out of the blue but relates to the pagan tribes of Arabia, who were in a state of war with the Muslims [9]. Therefore, to interpret the passage in any other way is to contradict the very text of the Qur’an.

Moreover, what is fascinating is that the very next verse (9:6) states that if any enemy warrior suddenly demands protection, one is religiously obligated to provide that individual with protection, explain the message of Islam to him, and if he refuses to accept, escort him to a place of security. This instruction to protect and escort enemy combatants to a safe haven makes it blatantly obvious that this passage in no way, shape or form, can be construed as violent.

Misquotation 3 – Verse 8:60

Another favourite text to misquote is the passage that states, “Prepare against them all you can of power and steeds of war..” but again, the very next verse reads, “If they incline towards peace, then incline towards peace as well” – hardly a violent passage!

Moreover, one must again ask who is being referred to in this citation? The historical context clearly places these verses again in reference to the ongoing war between the Muslims and the enemy forces of the Quraysh of Makkah and their tribal allies [10]. This chapter was revealed in reference to the Battle of Badr which took place between the Muslims who sought refuge in Madinah and the Quraysh who had persecuted them and driven them out of their homes in Makkah. The same chapter describes the pervasive warfare in Arabia and lack of security suffered by the early oppressed Muslim community. “And remember when you were few and oppressed in the land, fearing that people might abduct you, but He sheltered you, supported you with His victory, and provided you with good things – that you might be grateful.” (8:26)

Note also that sometimes Islamophobic bigots cite verse 8:12 from this same chapter “strike above their necks”, somehow completely missing the fact that the verse describes what God said to the angels during the battle of Badr. The first half of the verse reads, “When your Lord inspired the angels, ‘Verily, I am with you, so strengthen the believers…’”. To take a description of God’s inspiration to angels during a historical battle against the Quraysh oppressors and somehow distort that into a generic command for Muslims to attack non-muslims is profoundly dishonest, to say the least.

Misquotation 4 – Verse 47:4

This is perhaps the most outrageous of all misquotations. A phrase in the middle of a passage about battle is ripped out of its context and presented ludicrously as, “When you meet disbelievers, smite their necks.” To even the most casual reader who bothers to glance at the passage, the verse is talking about a meeting in mutual battle between warriors (Ar. “fi’l-muharabah” as al-Baydawi explains [11]) that comes to an end “when the war lays down its burdens” as the verse itself states. This verse is specifically discussing mutual battle with those disbelievers engaged in warfare as noted by Ibn Jareer al-Tabari [12]. This is clear from the opening line of the chapter which states, “Those who disbelieve and prevent people from the path of God“, which as Ibn Abbas has stated, is in reference to the pagans of Quraysh [13], who oppressed the believers by denying them the freedom to practice their faith and then went to war with them to exterminate their community.

With respect to the phrase, “until the war lays down its burdens“, Imam Qatadah (d.117H) explained it saying, “until the enemy warriors lay down their burdens” – a phrase that was echoed by many scholars throughout history, including Ibn Qutaybah al-Daynuri (d.276H) [14]. Note also that this verse provides Muslims with only two options for prisoners of war – unconditional release, or acceptance of ransom. The verse mentions no other option, and indeed scholars have pointed out that this is the general rule, for the Prophet Muhammad only punished those war criminals guilty of treachery or gross violations, but otherwise he almost universally would pardon people even his most ardent opponents, as he did with the war chief Thumamah ibn Uthal, Abu Sufyan ibn Harb, Habbar ibn al-Aswad, Ikrimah ibn Abi Jahl, Umayr ibn Wahb, Safwan ibn Umayyah, Suhayl ibn Aamir, and the list goes on.

Misquotation 5 – Verse 9:29

One of the most interesting citations is 9:29, along with the claim that it instructs Muslims to fight people of the Book “until they pay the jizya and feel subdued”. But this verse as well has a historical context that is neglected. The very early exegete, Mujahid ibn Jabr al-Makhzumi (d.104H) explained that this fighting was revealed in reference to the Prophet Muhammad’s campaign against the Byzantine empire [15]. The Prophet Muhammad sent al-Harith ibn Umayr al-Azdi as an emissary to the Byzantine vassal state of the Ghassanids, but the chieftain Shurahbeel committing the shocking crime of tying up the emissary, torturing him, and murdering him [16]. When an army was dispatched to confront the Ghassanids for their crime, the Vicarius Theodorus summoned a large force of Roman soldiers to engage in war against the Muslims in the Battle of Mu’tah.

Thus, this verse was revealed in regards to fighting within an existing war against an enemy political entity, namely the Byzantine empire, which lead to preparations for the expedition of Tabuk. The hostility of the group in question is mentioned in the this very Qur’anic passage itself, which goes on to state (9:32) that this instruction refers to those “who attempt to extinguish the light of Islam with their mouths“, which al-Dahhak (d.105H) stated meant “they wish to destroy Muhammad and his companions.” [17]

As history went on, imperial conflicts continued between the Byzantine empire and the subsequent Muslim empire of the Umayyads. Many writing within the historical setting of imperial conflict assumed that this verse characterized a generic state of perpetual warfare with opponent political entities. However, as noted in Tafsir al-Maraghi, all of the Qur’anic conditions of warfare mentioned earlier still apply to this verse. Thus, the verse means, “fight those mentioned when the conditions which necessitate fighting are present, namely, aggression against you or your country, oppression and persecution against you on account of your faith, or threatening your safety and security, as was committed against you by the Byzantines, which was what lead to Tabuk.” [18]

Conclusion

The Qur’an is a message to humanity that repeats 114 times, “In the Name of God the Most Compassionate the Most Merciful.” The Qur’an instructs Muslims to show goodness to those who do evil (41:34), to speak words of peace to those who are hostile (25:63), to call to the way of God with wisdom and beautiful preaching (16:125), to treat peaceful non-muslims with the utmost kindness and justice (60:8), to be the best of people towards other people (3:110), and to respect freedom of religion (2:256, 10:99). There is simply no plausible way to understand the Qur’an in a manner bereft of mercy, compassion or peace. Any sincere and reasonable person looking at these passages must necessarily recognize that the Qur’an stands for mercy, not for destruction and violence.

Attempts to portray the Qur’anic text as preaching violence do not stand up to academic scrutiny, and in fact, can be dispelled by simply reading the entire sentence and the immediate context. Dishonesty abounds in the selective chopping of sentences by both Islamophobes and radicals alike. Knowledge of the historical context of these verses clearly demonstrates that all of these passages without exception relate to fighting against those engaged in warfare. A careful examination of the scholarly analysis of these passages provides abundant statements clarifying the meaning of these verses.

At this point, it should be obvious that one of the best ways to combat misuse of scripture is by propagating the voluminous evidences which necessitate an understanding of scripture that is peaceful, merciful, and tolerant, and empowering those who advance this understanding. To insist on characterizing the religion as inherently violent is to play right into the hands of extremists on both sides who wish to incite hatred and perpetuate war.

Ibn Abbas explains that when the Muslims went to Makkah in 6 AH intending to perform pilgrimage, they were prevented from doing so by the Quraysh and agreed to turn around and go home after a peace treaty was made permitting them to return the following year. However, they were apprehensive to return again, fearing that they would be slaughtered while in a state of pilgrimage as the Quraysh had plotted to attack them at that time. These verses were revealed to assure them they would be able to defend themselves from such an act of aggression in the sacred precincts of Makkah. In the end, no such fighting took place at all and the Muslims were able to perform their pilgrimage in peace (al-Wahidi, al-Samarqandi, al-Tabari). ↩

See Tafsir of Ibn Jarir al-Tabari (d.310H) and al-Tha’labi (d.427H). Also, the famous early Muslim scholars Abu’l-Aliyah, Sa’id ibn Jubayr, and Ibn Zayd all explained that aggression here means “fighting anyone who is not fighting you”. The famous Umayyad caliph and religious scholar Umar ibn Abdul-Aziz was asked about this verse and he stated that it prohibited any fighting against those not engaged in warfare. This has been taken as a legal maxim by Muslim scholars prohibiting harming any non-combatants. ↩

Tahrir wal-Tanwir 2:192. Multiple early exegetical sources explain that the phrase “if they desist, then verily God is Most Forgiving, Most Merciful” means if they cease fighting you and desist from their warfare against you, including Tafsir Muqatil b. Sulayman (d.150H), Tafsir al-Samarqandi (d.375H) and Tafsir al-Tha’labi (d.427H). ↩

Reported by al-Tha’labi and al-Tabarani (d.360H). Some may wonder if scholars like Imam al-Kisaa’i were contradicted by the statement of some later Qur’anic commentators who said that fitnah means disbelief or idolatry. However, Ibn Jareer al-Tabari (d.310H) and others demonstrate that there is no contradiction as “coercing Muslims to commit disbelief/idolatry” is also intended by the verse as a form of persecution of Muslims. As the eminent early Qur’anic scholar, Makki ibn Abi Talib (d.437H) notes, “Fitnah linguistically means a trial, so a trial that causes one to lose faith is worse than being slain.” Ibn Jareer al-Tabari states the same (see next footnote). Moreover, we have the irrefutable evidence of the companion Abdullah ibn Umar related in Sahih Bukhari. Ibn Umar was asked to justify his pacifism during the war in the time of Caliph Ali, especially when the Qur’an states “Fight them until there is no more fitnah.” Ibn Umar replied that when the persecution of Muslims for their faith has ceased and the tortures and killing had subsided, there was no longer any fitnah (وقاتلوهم حتى لا تكون فتنة قال ابن عمر قد فعلنا على عهد رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم إذ كان الإسلام قليلا فكان الرجل يفتن في دينه إما يقتلونه وإما يوثقونه حتى كثر الإسلام فلم تكن فتنة). ↩

Anwar al-Tanzeel wa Asrar al-Ta’weel (9:5) of Imam al-Baydawi and Rooh al-Ma’ani (9:5) of Imam al-Alusi. Such statements by exegetes are given authority because the are in agreement with the text of the Qur’an itself. When reading the comments of various classical figures, it is important to note the historical context of their comments. Many exegetes lived in the era of rival empires vying for control against each other. Often, people in those times saw imperial conquest and political expansion as the only means of conveying the message of truth to other communities who lived under hostile political entities, and so some of them attempted to reinterpret such passages in order to permit a broader scope of application. However, such interpretations are refuted by the textual and historical context of the Qur’an. Moreover, those figures themselves stated that the ultimate goal was to establish the security of the Muslim lands (see Bidayatul-Mujtahid of Ibn Rushd) or communicate the message of the faith to other people, and thus by the principles of Islamic law political expansion as a means of propagation becomes irrelevant in the digital age of mass communication and globalization. ↩

Note also that verses 9:8 and 9:10 characterize the referents of these verses further by stating that those intended are the ones who “observe neither pact nor kinship in their dealings with believers”. The importance of understanding the general state of tribal Arabia cannot be understated. Today, a person can walk down the street fairly confident of not being mugged for their personal possessions, and can simply call the police should they feel their security threatened. But in seventh century Arabia, there was no police, no law, no order, only tribal protections. And these tribes were in a state of constant warfare with each other and would conduct perpetual raids. The Qur’an itself alludes to this environment, saying “Do they not then see that We have made Makkah a sanctuary secure, while men are being snatched away and ravaged from all around them?” (29:67). Wandering in the desert was a certain guarantee that one would be either killed and robbed, or worse – sold into slavery. In fact, that is precisely what happened to several of the individuals who became companions of the Prophet, including Suhaib al-Rumi, Salman al-Farisi and Zaid ibn Harithah. It is impossible to read chapter 9 without understanding this background context to appreciate the consolidation of order and rule of law that was being established in war-torn Arabia. ↩

SpiritualPerception.org is a website that aims to bring together academic research on spirituality, religion, philosophy and science in order to explore many of the key questions about life that confront every human being.

34 responses to “Top Five Misquotations Of The Quran”

Masha Allah, a very nice scholarly post indeed. Two thumbs up!.
It was a good reading just as it was good watching the video “Taking Back Our Narrative“ by Amir Abdel Malik and Nouman Ali Khan.
I like reading posts at Muslim Matters and look forward each day to finding good reading material.

So taking women as sex-slaves after each war against the kuffar is NOT aggression against women? Got it! ;)

FROM SAHIH BUKHARI – VOLUME 3, #432:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri that while he was sitting with Allah’s messenger we said, “Oh Allah’s messenger, we got female captives as our booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interruptus?” The prophet said, “Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it. No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence.”

damn! xD
how did you jumped that its a sex-slaves!!!
it said we got a woman in a WAR…. that! it must be last for years, agains an army, what a woman do in a war?
4:24 And [also prohibited to you are all] married women except those your right hands possess. [This is] the decree of Allah upon you. And lawful to you are [all others] beyond these, [provided] that you seek them [in marriage] with [gifts from] your property, desiring chastity, not unlawful sexual intercourse. So for whatever you enjoy [of marriage] from them, give them their due compensation as an obligation. And there is no blame upon you for what you mutually agree to beyond the obligation. Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Wise.

mean that in that war and specificly in that war, islam allowed to temporaly marry a slave ( that it captivated in a “war”) with giving her the muhr
( mean the price for marriage just like the marriage in islam search “the condition of marriage in islam”)… its nikah mean sex after marriage…
zina= the sex without marriage,from the biggest sin in islam that god abolish.
nikah= sex after marriage and it allowed.
_______
before islam, it was slavery, they were killing girls in theire birth, torturing slaves… islam came as a mercy to people in (realism)… so it turned the slavery from a conditionality (people under control) , to a simple work ( doing home work) and the slave get paid for that, with giving them theire rights, abolished killing and gaved the rights for women.
_______
abolishing of zina didnt came at once, it passed by many steps, even in islam at it first spreading it was okay to have sex with a woman than marry her for example cause there was no context about it, so mens in war used to have slave womans for sex before islam cause wars takes at least 5 months ( there was a war last 40 years “al-bassos war between tha’alab and bakr tribes”) also wars was done out of cities mean that time in the middle of sahara, so in that war came that context 4:24 for mens in war to allow temporaly married the captives woman “from a war” giving them theire rights even if she already have a husband cause she s in a war, except the pregnant.
directly after that islam abolished the temporaly marriage during to many contexts.https://islamqa.info/en/20738
zawaj mut’ah= temporaly marriage.
islam say everything is allowed except what god abolish :^)
______
the final abolishing of zinah:
17:32 [And do not approach unlawful sexual intercourse. Indeed, it is ever an immorality and is evil as a way.]
mean dont even get close from zina ( not just dont do it, dont even look at sexual part of woman or touch them for a malicious desire you idiots cause it gonna ruined your minds and it gonna be a disease, same for womens.

I only read the “Misinterpretation #1” before calling BS on this article… so the part of the verse that this article claims to have been omitted by people ““but if they cease fighting, then let there be no hostility except against oppressors“…
Now Im confused… tell me if this applied to Bani Quraiza(? sp) when the Prophet attacked the two-timing jews and basically did what would be considered ethnic cleansing by KILLING ALL MEN and taking all women and children as sex-slaves, including even selling some women to buy more horses???
Is that was the second part of the verse means when it says that “if they cease fighting”??? Because they were already banished to Khaybar and were not fighting the Muslims, even if we accept that Jews are backstabbing traitors who backstabbed Muslims in a previous battle? Does this mean that ALL of the tribe be destroyed and ethnically cleansed, or just the acutal perpatrators??? Collective punishment ok in Islam?

Hi Javed – your comment is a great example of a logical fallacy. The article debunked the claim that the Quran preaches violence. Instead of dealing with what the article talks about, you are asking about Banu Qurayzah which is a totally separate question. Your statement “killing all men” is debunked in this video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCgS5l4lv_4

Sh. ATabek Shukrov Nasafi compiles all the historical data which demonstrates only the warriors were punished, and it was because they joined the Ahzab in the war against the Muslims in the Battle of the Trench. Now, you are free to believe your own account of history, but you must realize that regardless of what you believe, as long as the Quran doesn’t preach that you cannot call it violent. Cheerio.

Sorry, the problem is not misquotation, the problem is religious writings whose poetic style renders them vague enough to be misinterpreted. You may be right about “smiting on the neck” but a few of your fellows can show you some video of heads rolling on the ground to support my point. Don’t misunderstand me, I defend Muslims every day against irrational attacks. But let’s start with what’s true and go from there.

And what do you have to say about the sex slaves made out of women and children?

Now to your comment: I dont have time to listen to Borat sugarcoat genocide for 45 minutes, so why dont you just give us your sources? Because the most widely held and accepted belief by majority of the scholars and ulema is that ALL of the Banu Quraiza’s men above the age of “razor” aka puberty, were killed and women were taken as sex-slaves/concubines.

My sources are from Sahih Bukhari and Muslim and the Seerah of the Prophet:

Muslim:
It has been narrated on the authority of Ibn Umar that the Jews of Banu Nadir and Banu Quraizi fought against the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) who expelled Banu Nadir, and allowed Quraiza to stay on, and granted favour to them until they too fought against him Then he killed their men, and distributed their women, children and properties among the Muslims, except that some of them had joined the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) who granted them security. They embraced Islam. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) turned out all the Jews of Medlina. Banu Qainuqa’ (the tribe of ‘Abdullah b. Salim) and the Jews of Banu Haritha and every other Jew who was in Medina. (Book #019, Hadith #4364)

Bukhari:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: The people of (Banu) Quraiza agreed to accept the verdict of Sad bin Mu’adh. So the Prophet sent for Sad, and the latter came (riding) a donkey and when he approached the Mosque, the Prophet said to the Ansar, “Get up for your chief or for the best among you.” Then the Prophet said (to Sad).” These (i.e. Banu Quraiza) have agreed to accept your verdict.” Sad said, “Kill their (men) warriors and take their offspring as captives, “On that the Prophet said, “You have judged according to Allah’s Judgment,” or said, “according to the King’s judgment.” (Book #59, Hadith #447)

Ibn Ishaq’s Seerah of Prophet:
Then they surrendered, and the apostle confined them in Medina in the quarter of d. al-Harith, a woman of B. al-Najjar. Then the apostle went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches. Among them was the enemy of Allah Huyayy b. Akhtab and Ka`b b. Asad their chief. There were 600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900. As they were being taken out in batches to the apostle they asked Ka`b what he thought would be done with them. He replied, ‘Will you never understand? Don’t you see that the summoner never stops and those who are taken away do not return? By Allah it is death!’ This went on until the apostle made an end of them. Huyayy was brought out wearing a flowered robe in which he had made holes about the size of the finger-tips in every part so that it should not be taken from him as spoil, with his hands bound to his neck by a rope. When he saw the apostle he said, ‘By God, I do not blame myself for opposing you, but he who forsakes God will be forsaken.’ Then he went to the men and said, ‘God’s command is right. A book and a decree, and massacre have been written against the Sons of Israel.’ Then he sat down and his head was struck off

LOL who is this Javed dude? The guy doesn’t even notice that the Bukhari hadith he quoted says warriors and the translator put “men” in brackets hahaha, you cant be bothered to check the sources other people recommend and you cant be bothered to comprehend the sources you cite yourself. Keep watching Borat pal, it’s done a fine job of educating you.

Zen Buddhist,
Im not in the habit of changing ANYTHING from a Hadith. And as you might have guessed, I read over 40 different hadith on this matter and not a SINGLE one says what happened to any other men!!! SO ALL MEN WERE CONSIDERED TO BE WARRIORS!
Now go away, laughing Budda…

Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi: I was among the captives of Banu Qurayza. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair.Sunan Abu Dawood, 38:4390

Never said you changed it Mr Potato head, I said the *translator* added that word. Gee-whiz. English isn’t your strong suit. LOL. And clearly arabic isn’t either or you could have gone to the arabic text of the Bukhari hadith and seen it says warriors. Do you concede that if the hadith says warriors and not men your entire objection collapses? If not, you’re just here to flame, you’re not interested in any facts that will challenge your point of view.

Hi Javed – if you had listened to the video by Sh Atabek Shukrov Nasafi he cites historical data on what happened to other adult males as well such as the father of Muhammad b. Ka’b al-Qurazi. So I know you want to pick out english translations of hadith to try to make Islam look violent, but unfortunately for you, the historical data doesn’t support your claims and scholars have soundly refuted them. Each of those hadith have chains of narrators which have to be analyzed, alternative chains of transmission, linguistic analysis of terms, etc. etc. But if you’re not interested in learning what academic sources have to say, why waste everyone’s time here?

The Jews of Banu Qurayza picked Saad bin Muadh, a chief of one of the tribes in Madina (who had good relations with them) to be the judge after their treacherous actions in Battle of the Trench (where the jews helped the Meccans and other outsiders to attack the Muslims and their OWN city, thereby breaching the covenant of Madinah that they were a party to). They agreed to abide by whatever verdict Saad bin Muadh would hand out. Saad proceeded to refer to the jewish scriptures on the punishment of treachery and breaking a treaty and gave the verdict accordingly. . So the punishment that you deem as cruel was in fact based on the JEWS’ own scriptures. Before you start spewing hatred and create confusion, please look at the context in which the punishment of Banu Qurayza was carried out. It was done fairly and in accordance with their own laws and nobody else’s.

[…] Today more than ever we need to understand the Quran not just read it. We are being questioned about what exactly the Quran say’s but don’t know how to refute misunderstanding. We need to understand the verses that are constantly misquoted and defend the true message of the Quran. I would like to end this post with a quote from an article I read today on MuslimMatters.org called Top Five Misquotations of the Quran. […]

The God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob has already prevailed…You have already lost allah. as the flight ends we are all grreeted bye the host that made our journey a little more comfortable. so as the host/flight attendant says as we un board our flight- “bye bye”, “bye bye”, bye…… may your flight be a scourching one . Ace ventura said it well when he looooooooooooooooserrrrrrrrr!

Overall an interesting piece. However…
If many Muslims throughout history have found a different interpretation to you 1/ Can you really claim that your interpretation is ‘correct’? and 2/ Does it even matter? What Islam says is simply not as important as what Muslims do because of what they think it says.
You talk a lot about historical context influencing the meaning, but doesn’t Islamic doctrine say that the Koran is the unchanging final word of Allah? It’s instructions are surely not limited by context according to this doctrine.
You seem to ignore abrogation in this article. Many knowledgeable scholars throughout history would regard a number of the verses you quote as abrogated. As an example, of the 7 verses you cite in your conclusion, 6 can be regarded as abrogated (replaced/updated by later verses). The other one (3:110) doesn’t say what you say it says.

[Muhsin Khan 3:110
You [true believers in Islamic Monotheism, and real followers of Prophet Muhammad SAW and his Sunnah (legal ways, etc.)] are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind; you enjoin Al-Ma’ruf (i.e. Islamic Monotheism and all that Islam has ordained) and forbid Al-Munkar (polytheism, disbelief and all that Islam has forbidden), and you believe in Allah. And had the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) believed, it would have been better for them; among them are some who have faith, but most of them are Al-Fasiqun (disobedient to Allah – and rebellious against Allah’s Command).]

I have checked other translations and none of them command Muslims to be good to other people. If anything this is one of the many verses that says Muslims are superior and other people are inferior, leading to intolerance.

Don’t get me wrong, I like your contextual interpretation and I hope that it becomes accepted as what Islam stands for. The simple fact is that this is not, nor has it ever been, the case. Many respected scholars and Imans would disagree with your interpretation. The leader of IS has a phd in Islamic studies for crying out loud.
If Islam so clearly calls for peace and tolerance, how did devout Muslims armies conquer most of the known world? Why is there so much persecution and intolerance of non-Muslims by Muslims?

Overall I think the examples of Muhammad’s behaviour and interpretation of instructions that you have detailed here are very selective and misrepresent the overall message in the Koran and Hadith.

Thanks for your question Derek. This is the natural question that many people ask when they are confronted with a presentation of the Islamic sources that conflicts with the popular image of Islam as inherently violent – which Islam is the real Islam and the ‘correct’ interpretation?

Before answering this questions, allow me to address the factual issues you raised.

– Verse 3:110 says “You are the best of people ever raised up for mankind…”. Numerous books of exegesis mention that this means “the best of people in conduct towards other people” ( يعني أنتم خير الناس للناس). This is precisely what the Prophet emphasized in numerous statements saying, “Show compassion to all those on earth, and the one who is above the heavens will bestow compassion upon you.”

– Anyone who has studied Qur’anic sciences knows that the term “naskh” was used by later scholars to refer to abrogation, but was used by early scholars to include specification, clarification, particularization, etc, as specialists like Abu Ishaaq al-Shatibi (d.790H) and many others pointed out (Shatibi, Muwafaqat vol. 3, p.81). The problem is that nonmuslims and ignorant Muslims come along and see half the Quran labelled “mansookh” and think it means hundreds of verse go out the window. The most detailed analytical studies on the topic of abrogation include scholars like Ibn al-Jawzi, Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti, Abdul-Azim al-Zarqani, Abdullah al-Shinqeeti, Shah Waliyullah al-Dihlawi, and Mustafa Zayd, all of whom rejected the wide-reaching declarations of abrogation, with Zayd and al-Dihlawi concluding that there are only 6 or 5 cases in the Quran, respectively. Incidentally, there is only one verse in the entire Quran that these specialists were all able to agree actually fit the definition of abrogation – do you know which one? I’ll give you a hint, it wasn’t any of the verses quoted in the article.

– The historical context doesn’t mean the ruling of Islam is limited to history, it means it applies in any situation that has the same ratio legis (‘illah).

If we agree that Islam is defined by what is revealed in the Qur’an, what was explained by the Prophet Muhammad, and we have fourteen hundred centuries of Muslim scholarship that explain that Islam entails being good to both Muslims and Non-Muslims, being kind/compassionate/just/merciful with everyone. How ignorant or malicious Muslims misinterpret and misquote Islam can easily be exposed with academic scholarship. So we should give credence to the understanding that is backed up by the Qur’an and the life of the Prophet Muhammad, who showed forgiveness to the people of Makkah who had formerly persecuted and tortured him and his followers. Islam is a faith which emphasizes the Divine attributes of Mercy and Compassion, and God wishes to see these attributes emulated in the behaviour of His servants. You said that you hoped this interpretation of Islam would become accepted – I don’t think you noticed the article footnotes are cites exegetical works over the past thousand years! This understanding already has been the dominant understanding by scholars of Islam for fourteen hundred years! The massive majority of Muslims today as well reject violent interpretations and espouse the exact same understanding in this article, even if they may not be able to articulate it in the same academic rigor.

Ibn al-Qayyim (d.751H) said, “Any ruling that replaces justice with injustice, mercy with cruelty, prosperity with corruption, or wisdom with nonsense can never be part of Islamic law even if it is claimed to be so according to some interpretations.” (I’lam al-Muwaqqi’in, vol. 1, p. 333).

Thankyou for the respectful way you have answered me. I am looking for answers rather than confrontation and I am grateful that you have answered in this spirit. It can’t be nice having someone query your faith and words and I ask your forgiveness for any offence I may cause. Thanks also for spending so much of your time providing me with such a comprehensive reply, it is no small thing.

You certainly give me things to think about and I will look more closely at the sources you cite.

As a non Muslim, what is (or should be) regarded as ‘correct’ Islam is less important for me than what Muslims actually do. It does not take many ignorant and malicious (or just misguided) Muslims to have a devastating impact on a society.

Thanks for the direct answers to the factual points I raised. I take your point on 3:110 and it’s interpretation. I don’t think I was completely wrong in saying that the actual words don’t clearly say ‘be nice to people’ but more ‘you are a benefit to people’ but I bow to your interpretation.
However, can you honestly say that Muhammad always acted with total compassion? I think there are examples where he did things (for whatever reason) that could lead me to justifiably question this.

I also take your point on abrogation. I was trying to make the point that this doctrine just adds to the mixed messages that people can take. You cite eminent scholars but I am sure others could cite other scholars who agree with their view. It is difficult to find a conclusive right and wrong.

This is really what led me on the path that resulted in me visiting this page. Muslims doing or saying things I felt were clearly wrong (evil even) and justifying them using Islamic teachings. I thought that if I read the Koran it would be obvious that they were wrong. It was not, and I found that deeply disturbing.
You say that those that misquote can easily be exposed with academic scholarship. That is part of the problem I am having. People like IS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, repeatedly quote directly from Islamic sources to justify what they do. I am not seeing this being easily exposed as in error. When people try (which seems rare-many claim they are ‘unislamic’ but seem very vague as to why that is) it seems to go backwards and forwards with each side citing different things to counter their opponents last claim.

I accept that the scholars you refer me to cover Islamic history but I’m sure there are other scholars who have conflicting views, and Islamic history is certainly not one long era of peace, harmony and goodwill to all men.
I know bad things like slavery have happened in all parts of the world and on the watch of all religions. No other religion’s main prophet kept slaves, traded slaves, and oversaw the enslaving of people though as far as I’m aware. It also seems to have been too easy for Muslims to provide religious justification (or at least avoid religious condemnation) for massacre and genocide.
Muhammad’s own companions embarked on a campaign of aggressive and violent expansion after his death. Presumably they knew him and his message best.

These are some of the most extreme and troublesome examples of course. I really want to think that the more peaceful interpretation that you present is ‘correct’ and you make very strong points that it is. Further evidence is provided by the overwhelming majority of Muslims being peaceful, selfless people. Unfortunately it doesn’t take many to make these arguments effectively irrelevant, and Islam is currently saddled with too many of these people for comfort.

It’s not just the violent minority that worry me. Surveys (and I accept they can never be completely reliable) show worrying levels of support for indefensible acts of intolerance and violence amongst the worldwide Muslim population.
Leaving violence aside there is also wide support for other things I find ‘wrong’. Death for apostates, adulterers, and homosexuals. The call for sharia law to be implemented. Disadvantageous treatment of women. Suppression of free speech where perceived criticism of Islam is concerned. FGM. I’m sure you know where I am going and that you could add things to the list.
I’m also certain that you could make a very good case that some or all of these things are unislamic and against Islamic teachings (or that I have misunderstood what they actually represent).
What I would ask is that if enough Muslims believe that their faith justifies violence and intolerance (and opposes certain ‘modern Western values’), does it really matter whether they are correct or not?
If Muslims still hold views about what Islam teaches that are in error in this day of the internet where nearly all information can be found instantly, what hope is there?

Thank you Derek, I really wish we had more people like you – who ask serious questions but with an intent to learn not with an intent to denigrate or dehumanize. I am strongly optimistic that we can work together to counteract the narrative of hate and publicize the mainstream educated voices of tolerance on both sides.

SpiritualPerception will have many more articles on these topics of confusion and many of the issues you raised are being addressed in articles currently under construction. In the meantime, I encourage you to read a broad range of authors who have written biographies of Prophet Muhammad – Karen Armstrong, Martin Lings, Adil Salahi, Jonathan Brown, Tariq Ramadan, etc. All of these authors have very different views and perspectives, which you will find helpful in developing a more informed outlook on the subject.

The narrative of hatred being perpetuated on both sides has unfortunately lead to a rapid increase in both radicalism and islamophobia, and this means we all must work harder to deconstruct such fallacious narratives. I can appreciate that for an outsider or layman it might seem like both narratives have purchase in Islamic thought. But this is just like a non-expert being confronted with conflicting data and back-and-forth debates on the benefit of vaccination (which the medical community has consensus on) or the reality of climate change (which the scientific community has consensus on). Radicals misquoting religious scripture look blatantly as unscientific to academics familiar with Islamic scholarship, and this article provides a clear case study of that.

Which leads to the more important question – what has lead to the emergence of these radical groups in recent times? What are the factors that lead to the weaponization of ideology, be it religious or otherwise? What is the significance of political instability, regional conflict, foreign invasion and occupation, economic sanctions, brutal secularist dictators, in bolstering the ranks of extremists? The author Pankaj Mishra astutely observes that ISIS has far more in common with the Khmer Rouge of Pol Pot than anything in Islamic history, and the more factors you compare between the two the more you realize how accurate that is. This will also be discussed in far more detail in a forthcoming article.

I’m glad you mentioned Tariq Ramadan, I already have his ‘footsteps of the Prophet’ on my kindle and am slowly working through it to give myself wider perspective.

Pankaj Mishra may be onto something. I saw a quite amusing article recently about things IS make use of that are clearly from the ‘infidels’. Whilst it’s very probably correct to say there is nothing quite like it in Islamic history, there are various other things in Islamic history that I would have concerns about.

All of the socio-economic things you mention have to be considered but so do the Islamic teachings. Hopefully the peaceful interpretations will become universally accepted as correct. Is there an argument that Islamic teaching is too easily misinterpreted? There are numerous voices calling for reform of Islam. Maybe clarification would be a better word? I live in hope anyway.

As a Westerner I feel we get the blame for these things quite a bit, not always fairly. There have been brutal dictators certainly, the West helped get rid of some of them, but the situation (with regards radicalisation) seems to have got dramatically worse after that. Some radicals hate the West because we got involved in Iraq, but then others hate it because we didn’t get involved in Syria.
The crusades (still) seem to be cited as evidence of the West’s aggression and hatred of Islam. They were a very limited attempt to reclaim a small part of the massive swathes of territory taken by Muslim aggression though (and in many ways were a direct copy of Islamic Jihad theories). It seems all too easy to criticize the perceived opponents whist ignoring the fact that it was only your own side doing the exact same things that led to their actions in the first place.
I’m noticing I’m just as much in danger of getting caught up in history as some of these radicals! We have to avoid this don’t we? It’s how things stand now, and how we make things better from today’s situation that’s important.

I guess the big question I have about the socio ecomonic argument is the evidence of the western extremists. They seem to largely be from the middle classes, clever and well educated. The main suspect for being Jihadi John is from an Egyptian family that was granted asylum in the UK. The West sheltered and supported his family, protecting his father from a death sentence in Egypt. I just can’t understand the mentality.

Anyway, thanks again for taking the time to help me with these things. I shall read your forthcoming articles with interest and an open mind.
Peace.

Derek lambda – I just want to ask, on the one hand you say you aren’t bothered so much on the “correct” interpretation of Islam as much as what Muslims do but on the other you are reading deeply into the subject of interpretation and opinion on Islam. It seems to me something deep down telling you you want to know if Islam is the truth and you would accept it if you find you agree with everything you currently object to. The thing is that once you realise Allah is the One Creator, who has sent Prophets and Messengers to every nation, and that now there are no more of those the only thing left is the Quran who no one has been able to match in its linguistic beauty, that this is the truth, and His wisdom is above any human ideas, once you believe that all the debates are cleared up in your mind. Islam is submission to His Will because you know that He knows better than us and wants what is best for us. So don’t die until you become Muslim, we just care for you :)

” There shall be no compulsion in the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing.”

Hi Nadia,
Firstly thanks for trying and caring.
When I read the Koran I didn’t really find a truth I could recognise I’m afraid. I didn’t find linguistic beauty either, although of course I read a translation rather than the arabic so maybe that would have helped.
I think the reason I am studying is to reassure myself that Islam can have a place in my society. There are so many things done in the name of Islam that seem to go against good things my society stands for, not just from the extremists either. Without getting caught up in scriptural arguments I’m thinking of free speech, equality (of sexes and peoples), freedom of personal choices etc.
Of course it’s not all bad and on balance may well be of benefit overall but there is more than enough to greatly concern me.
Some of these things I regard as basic humanity. If a God exists then he gave us this sense of humanity. I’m trying to make clear how Islamic teachings can completely fit in with this sense of humanity. This will obviously help reassure me but I think will also help others. Other non Muslims will be able to clearly see that Islam is not a threat to them and maybe some Muslims could avoid being guided to the wrong path. I suppose I would like to be able to show such people why they are wrong. This being of benefit to both me and them.
Of course this is a bit selfish as this is MY personal view of humanity but I do think some of it is innate.
Islam is submission to Allah as I understand it. I refuse to believe that a most gracious and merciful God wants people to do many of things done in the name of Islam. I think if people look within to what their own God-given conscience tells them then they will act differently. It seems to me that too many people are submitting to their own understanding of a book rather than submitting to God.

You are right the linguistic beauty is seen in the original language. And I agree the things that go against God’s Merciful nature are absolutely against Islam because Islam is from God, it inherently “fits” into humanity because it is from the one who created it! And even if you don’t believe that you will find in your studies that Islam upholds the values you mentioned. Your society is not a standard to look up to, human values are subjective, true values are from Allah and they manifests through our submission to Him, some of which is innate, because God created that too. Wish you all the best, you are close to Islam.

“the Quran who no one has been able to match in its linguistic beauty”

Muslims like to repeat this again and again, but it’s an opinion without any evidence. After all, to prove it, you would need to have nativelike fluency in all the languages of the world and need to know all the literatures of the world (both present and past) to make a valid comparison.

Hi again Nadia,
I don’t think that my society is perfect by any means. But I do think that some of its ideals (which it doesn’t always live up to by the way) would be approved of by a gracious and merciful God more than some of the things practiced in some Islamic based communities.
I hope you see what I mean (and can think of some examples), I’m certainly not trying to be offensive in any way.
I wish you all the best too.

Hi Derek,
I know it’s been a while since the conversation ended, but I would just like to say a few things.

You’re right, some of the ideals of the Western world and society are not just approved, but ordained by a Gracious and Merciful God, and those are prevalent in majority of the teachings of Islam (without going into exact references, Dr. Nazir above has done a good job of that :)). And some of the things practiced in Islamic countries and societies are quite opposite to what God has ordained, but instead are more ingrained and prevalent in the culture of the region/society/country.

Just one example of this – in Saudi Arabia, women are not allowed to drive (a rule which is now undergoing some change I hear). No where in Islamic teachings or practices does it bar a woman from leading/taking a transport. That’s like saying women could not ride a camel/horse in the Prophet Muhammad’s (Peace be upon him) time, which we know isn’t true because women did travel. I don’t exactly know what the historical background of why such a rule came into being, but it has nothing to do with Islam. Another example – Saudi Arabia is led by a monarchy and royal family. The “right to rule” by monarchy has actually no place in Islam – it is not how Muslim leaders are selected/elected as ordained by Islam. This is ironic, since this is the country that implements “Sharia law” (or so it seems) most strictly (not necessarily in the most just manner), yet does not follow how its leaders should be selected as per the religion suggests. :)

The point I’m trying to make is, which is the unfortunate reality of today, is that most of the Muslim leaders (and hence societies) are quite far from the actual teachings and spirit of Islam and what God teaches us through the Quran and the Prophet’s way of life. The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) told us that actions are judged by their intentions (for more on this, you can read this article on MM: http://muslimmatters.org/2010/12/02/actions-judged-by-intentions/ ). If someone INTENDS to use the religion or religious text for their own deviated/perverted/sadistic political or personal agenda, they can find all sorts of phrases and verses to back up their claims and carry out their evil plans. (This goes for any text by the way, religious or secular, fiction or non-fiction). The same text can also be used to back up carrying out countless good deeds which are highly encouraged and praised and recompensed in goodness for by God.

So what is the spirit of Islam then, you may ask? As Nadia pointed out, it is ultimately submission to the will of God. And why would God want you or I to do one thing or another as He suggests in all His Divine books (Old Testament, Gospel, Psalms of David, Quran), the finality of which is the Quran? The essence or spirit of it is that it is ultimately good for humanity. If we choose to follow, it is better for us; if not, there is no compulsion on us. That is our choice – the choice to do good or evil, to obey God or not to obey Him.

Ultimately, we shall all be judged before Him. I sincerely wish you and all of us the best!

I’m still working my way through this and thanks for the link, I shall look at that certainly.

I have been reading a book by Tariq Ramadan and I like the peaceful, positive message he appears to take from the teachings and actions of Muhammad.
The problem I have is that it he seems to be somewhat selective in the teachings and actions he chooses to represent as the ‘lessons’ of Islam. It’s a bit like how progressive parents treat their children- ‘praise the good, ignore the bad’. (Sorry everyone if this is going too far, I’m a bit clumsy with expressing myself here).
Anyway, the overall result is that the Muhammad that Tariq describes is not really recognizable to me as the one in the Koran and other source material. (At least at the moment anyway).

Now, I’m very much still learning, but if I see a completely different Muhammad, it’s not difficult to see how other Muslims see one completely different as well, both today and historically.

There are examples of things that I think are fundamentally wrong, that Islam at least appears to endorse. I mentioned slavery in an earlier post. I have seen arguments that slavery is unislamic, but from my study so far I don’t find them convincing. I can certainly see why slavery was part of the Islamic world for most of its history (and maybe still would be without pressure from the West).

I understand completely what you are saying about Saudi Arabia. What is that driving thing all about? I can’t see any justification at all for that. Maybe a problem of today is that Saudi is incredibly rich thanks to their oil. Their idea of Islam is extremely well funded and is widely advertised because of this.

Anyway thanks again for your helpful post and your best wishes.
My best wishes go to you and everyone else here.

Hello, just stumbled upon this good discussion and I am grateful for the insights. Meanwhile, can someone teach me Shahid?
These Al Shabaab are asking people to recite Shahid (hope thats the name) and if you do not they shoot or slit your throat.
Thank You

Why do you Muslims refer to scholars all the time. Most are not academic scholars at all and if you need one to understand the koran then its a shame. Indeed people do cherry pick and in the case of Quran 5:32 its the reverse. “…if any one killed a person, it would be as if he killed the whole of mankind; and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole of mankind…” – The Holy Quran (Chapter Five, Verse 32). But this is not what this verse says when you read all of it. In fact, it says almost the exact opposite when you read the whole thing. So what we have is a so called holy book which needs scholars to understand it and does not stand scrutiny. On the other hand Christianity teaches love so i would encourage all you Muslims to change your belief structure to a peaceful loving doctrine. There is a very good reason why wherever there is violence there are Muslims hand in glove.

Jayakallah for the article, The following link explains 8 more verses in detail. In fact it is so easy to explain and justify these verses. A simple read through of few verses before and after the quoted verses gives the context.

@john bayley – you can certainly read the Quran on your own and understand it. have you tried? Your statement appears to be a case of taking the word of public opinion as true as against one’s own better judgment. Read the Quran yourselves and decide if it is tough to understand or easy.